Have you given any thought as to why nobody else has answered your template topic? I am certainly not the only other person here. I am certainly not preventing others from answering your template question.

I don't want you to go away. I want you to communicate with the rest of us on the same level. You've been making up insane arguments that have nothing to do with the topics at hand. Your grumbly entrance to this forum likely scared off the assistance of everyone else.

I don't use GoLive's templates so I cannot answer your question in the other discussion thread. You'll need to be nice (and coherent) to the rest of the participants on this forum if you want them to help.

I know. Thanks. I had 9 on my old computer, but I wasn't real thrilled. Anyway, it's all a PC environment for me. Well, I could do Mac, but I think it would be too much work for the reward. Maybe not. Still, I have Gl8 working in virtual XP, but it has some hiccups, but ya know, in the last couple years, it had some hanguns in real XP, so I guess it's a moot point :-Þ

I work all on Mac, though I do have XP installed on a MacBook for testing. Have never found cross-platform working to be easy. Best to have all your files in one place. It's always best to take the path of least resistance :-)

GL9 was, according to most reports, problematic, and had some features removed. Adobe stills owns it so sharing copies is illlegal.

That being said, it is the only option to run GL on Lion. As mentioned before, I've only seen Windows versions being offered (though illegally on warz sites, etc..). Adobe will not sell you a copy nor will they release it to the public domain.

Adobe blew it for me by releasing a pricey 5.5 so close to the 5 I had just purchased.

FWIW, I have GL9 running in Snow Leopard. I don't find it buggy or problematic at all. I was using GL CS1 before that, and I don't find GL9 lacking in the least, compared to that. And, despite its age, it's far-and-away better than Dreamweaver CS5. About the only feature missing in GL9 that affected me was the lack of a live preview mode. But, that's not a biggie and easily worked-around.

GL9 is probably the biggest thing keeping me from migrating to Lion. If it doesn't work in Lion, I'm going to have to use Dreamweaver. And I think I'd rather chew broken glass.

It's a type of environment that I'm very comfortable with. Plus, I already have CS5, so Dreamweaver is already there. I'm more than willing to look at other options that would give me a similar environment, but I'd rather not have to purchase anything else at this point. Web work is more of a side-line for me.

I own GoLive 9. I have been using GoLive since cyberstudio. GoLive 9 was the most backwards app I have ever purchased. In other words, it was actually worse than version 1. and that is hard to do. So many problems with how it operates and tons of bugs. It is SO amazing to me to see a company so out of touch with their customers. We will remember this time when we discuss how they went under.

Running Golive CS2 in "Windows XP Mode" doesn't work based on certain variables, if they are slightly altered. The other common option, "Windows Virtual PC" is full of problems related to its limitations. One, you cannot use preview mode, because it requires an absolute path to create a temp file, therefore it doesn't work. You can install Google Chrome and click on the browser for a preview as an alternative. Windows Virtual PC is inheritedly slow as well. It hogs Windows Vista and 7 resources, as it would, however the throughput is not fluid for lack of architecture, therefore you end up with a slow, shaky, and unstable results. You can only use one USB device to add applications or update the virtual XP environment... the limitations are extensive.

I personally use "VMware Workstation 8" ($199 USD), which targets resource heavy applications that take RAM and network paths seriously. GoLive CS2 works wonderfully within it. Unity Mode allows you to float XP Windows successively in Windows 7. If you MUST upgrade to Windows 7, and MUST have GoLive CS2, this is really the only option.

I have downloaded and tried every WYSIWYG editor, to compare possibilities with Golive and none exist. GoLive is an application of its own dominion.

I work in Dreamweaver CS5 when I have to, and it does offer automation, like replacing the defunct SWF embed code with script rewrites that are mandatory for Internet Explorer 9 and browser backward compatibility. But try to click a table cell to modify it... you can't. Try to visually alter many of html elements in layout mode... you can't. I seriously, passionately dislike Dreamweaver for a list of reasons I would imagine has already been enumerated. It is an application optimized for developers, not for designers.

Yes, it would take an Adobe team to keep GoLive up to speed, but Adobe is wealthy beyond measure, fully able to provide ongoing support if they chose to care. I don't even want additional widgets to bloat GoLive, I just want it to work in Windows 7 64-bit. I have spent $1,000’s over the years in support of Adobe, by purchases for myself and clients, and they don’t care that a minion of Adobe GoLive users earnestly want their beloved application.

"Adobe doesn't care about its customers"... which I agree is the most accurate post on this thread.

I seem to have acquired an unusual problem. I keep trying to get out of the web business because I don't like all the changes, and don't want to deal with having to keep reinventing the wheel regarding software, not to mention I'm tired of having to spin my wheels with code problems, hackers, and hosting/domain name issues. I have other skills that can make money, which I would like to move into.

The problem is, some of my clients and those new clients who were referred to me for desiging a new website have been offended, and they don't want to change to someome else. Some have, but some seem to be taking it personally.

I know Dreamweaver and have used it for years, but I still dislike it. If I am going to keep my older clients and take on new ones, I really only want to work in GoLive so I can continue to use components, and GoLive's well constructed interface.

I thought I had resolved all this, but looks like the Adobe betrayal in this department has far reaching effects. I am more upset with Adobe now than I think I was when they first cut the rope for GoLive users.

For me, GoLive is a non-issue. It's my software of choice and I think it's the best out there. But I start in Photoshop and I can take that design, slice up the images and put the whole thing together using a text pad or something. I don't need GoLive, it just makes my life easier.

What I would suggest to you is this - most people have the need for some sort of content management system anyway. I would really get familiar with a program like Joomla. Then you could look through litterally thousands of templates that exist and find something that is close to what suits your needs, replace all of the images with images that you create and then tweak the CSS to polish it off. This way here, you would never have the need for an editor. I still have the need for it (as I said - to make my life easier) to make changes to the extensions available for Joomla. I customize about 90% of all of the components, modules and plugins that are out there to suit my needs. But most of these will work right out of the box for most people. Meaning that the chances of you needing to modify the code is slim. And if you do, you just hire a programmer to get that job done and include it in your budget.

Taking this advice will probably enable you to continue this type of work and eliminate the need to use GoLive if it's just not possible moving forward.

Because of the amount of web work that I do, I am in GoLive every day. I know eventually I will have to upgrade to Lion and it will go away. But hopefully, someone will be smart enough to come out with a program that is similar. My guess is they won't because of the growing amount of templates out there and laziness of people to do everything from scratch. Unfortunately, we are a dying breed. But in the corporate world - there is still much need for people like me and there is plenty of money to be spent too. Most of the websites we work on are $40k and up.

But what I have laid out for you is a great alternative to the way things use to get done and hopefully, it is a solution for you to satisfy your clients.

I love your solution. If only I could position myself to get it to work for me. I have never charged anywhere near what you charge. Maybe that's why my clients are not happy I am changing things.

It will take time to learn Joomla, which I don't have right now… but you have me interested in making the attempt. I could possibly attempt the next website in February and learn to use Joomla as I go.

Thank you so much for sharing your way of working with me. I'll keep you posted!

Don't get me wrong. This is not a solution for only the big websites. I was just saying that there are still ways for people like me to make a living at this (even though I won't be doing it much longer). This solution is specifically perfect for low-budget websites. As you buy a template, you are looking for a site that has been built that has the right structure to it (a lot of sites have a similar structure to it). The only thing you would change is the graphics and then tweak the CSS for the positioning, colors, fonts and such.

So my solution would still work perfectly for you. If you have a client with a $5,000 budget, you don't want to be spending countless hours on the interface design. This cures that for you

...It will take time to learn Joomla, which I don't have right now… but you have me interested in making the attempt. I could possibly attempt the next website in February and learn to use Joomla as I go...

...from what I understand, the future of the web might end up being in the hands of open source apps such a Joomla and Drupal...

Imagine where we'd all be if we picked up on Joomla or some CMS 2 years ago when we discussed this instead of petitioning to bring a corpse back to life. Some of the earliest posts in this multi-year discussion warned that a futile effort to revive GoLive would distract from progressing as a web designer. You would have had plenty of time to learn Joomla (or any other CMS) if you were not distracted. I hope you find new energy in web design by getting past futile distractions and looking to the future.

Wrong for you is not wrong for others, Marian. Ipso Facto statements like that reveals much about a person who is quick to judge without facts or knowledge.

VMware Workstation has features useful for product development that no other VMware product has such as integration with MS Visual Studio or VM teams, where the network between virtual machines in the team can be specified, including bandwidth and packet loss. VMware Workstation usually gets the new virtual hardware releases first and supports the widest guest OS range. It is optimized for interactive use and has some Direct3D (DirectX 9) and OpenGL capabilities.

VMware Player is a stripped-down version of workstation, no cloning, no multi-level snapshot trees, no teams, etc. While workstation allows 64GB of allocated RAM, Player 4 is limited 32GB last I knew. Player runs a virtual instance, but can't create the virtual machine. Workstation allows for the creation and administration of virtual machines. Workstation allows you to use multiple screens on the virtual machine. Player only allows single screen. Workstation is targeting power users and developers; VMware even provides some hooks for using a debugger on the host to debug code in the Workstation.

I am not only a html editor of 17 years, but a developer in Zend PHP, CakePHP, Ajax, MS Visual Studio, with a VM loaded Mac OS X Lion, and Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. So like I said, for some users who have limited skill sets, Player is sufficient, but for others Workstation is not optional.

I wouldn't sweat it. The people that are doing the big bux websites are not doing it alone, and probably part of the team hired to do it.

I've designed and project-managed large sites, but my personal cut was modestly proportionate

One person can only do so much, and when you factor in programming, the costs can go up if you hire a company to help out.

I've also found it extremely hard to find reliable freelance designers and programmers to save company overhead. Can't tell you how many people from guru.com flake on projects - all at various stages. The work ethic of so many is terrible these days.

I prefer the clients who allow us to work at our hourly rate and like to keep things simple. You can find cheap website creation everywhere these days, so it's important to find clients who value working with people who not only will be around tomorrow and have the skills, but also close to the same time zone and are fluent native speakers in the client's language.

Not true for me (always). We have two other designers that will help contribute ideas (in other words, we usually present 3 concepts to a client). But I am the only one doing the work and building the website. Occasionally we have the need for a programmer that knows a little more than me, but most websites - I'm the man - from soup to nuts.

...Ipso Facto statements like that reveals much about a person who is quick to judge without facts or knowledge...

Lighten up. Your comment about $199 would scare other users to think that they have to pay that just to run GL. You can run GL in VMware Player for free. There is no concern about "resource heavy applications that take RAM and network paths seriously". GoLive runs fine in VMware Player.

Please do not make ipso facto statements with your own limited skill set.

Inndesign wrote:

...So like I said, for some users who have limited skill sets, Player is sufficient...

Eh... You never said that.

The difference you draw between Workstation and Player does not apply to a GoLive user. If you need the level of resources offered by Workstation to run GoLive, you must be using GoLive incorrectly. GoLive was not designed for, nor requires, that much RAM. That is nice that you think you have sufficient experience. I'm just pointing out that you apparently have no experience with Player and have no need to scare people into paying $199 to keep running GoLive. Seriously, lighten up.

Inndesign wrote:

... this is really the only option.

Are you able to recognize the silliness of criticizing me for an ipso facto statement when you foolishly believe that Workstation is really the only option? You haven't even bothered to discuss VirtualBox.

Oy! We're here to discuss possibilities; not to scare people into wasting money on unnecessary software.

I'm gald to see this current golive forum. I'm one of those who has stranded sites. I struggled with DW to get them down. But working with DW is so tedious that I just don't maintain my vintage sites anymore. And I like the old look before everything became the same on the web.

I'm writing to ask what "workstation" might be the best for someone who plans to use the most stable golive version on a mac. I plan to assemble a vintage machine and software. Can a old G4 on Tiger run golive 5? I forget what the last working set up was. I'm looking for the formula for the perfect legacy system set up.

Wow, GL5 goes way back. 8 (CS2) was the last real version (there was the failed 9). Tiger on a G4 should be perfect for it as I seem to recall running it on that model & OS originally. I'm still using GL8 everyday with Snow Leopard and it works great.

Like many designers, I've migrated to Dreamweaver like a good little Adobe customer. But I've found it lacking for certain things at which GoLive excelled. Which is why I continue to use GoLive from time to time, even long after its demise.

I'm a Designer, I'm a Web Developper and I'm an Art Director. I still use Golive all the time and for all the different needs in web development. On my Mac (OS X 10.8.) Dreamweaver is installed but never used... Never.

Anyone who has ever had anything to do with user interface design would understand why - after using the two softwares for a while.

This is not a "Golive is good for designers" issue. A good user interface is better for everyone. For designers and developpers... everyone.